'In this po-faced tinkering with the legacy of dead heroines, the endemic male violence women face today is so easily forgotten'

To wipe away these convictions is to wipe clean any sign of what was done to these women and how disproportionately and violently they were punished for disorderly conduct, setting small fires and breaking some windows – after many years of patiently, reasonably, nicely arguing for women’s inclusion in the political system, and being ignored.

It would be one thing if over the past 100 years the women who fought for the vote had been stigmatised, ridiculed and belittled as a result of their criminalisation. But the narrative went the other way, the correct way: the women were, and are, seen as freedom fighters who were made the victims of an aggressive and perversely violent “justice” system in which male police officers, detectives and judges cared less about considering the principles at stake than preserving male power, punishing female unruliness (often with outright violence and revolting, rape-symbolic violations such as force-feeding) and demolishing female solidarity.

The women’s convictions stand as clear signs of what they were up against; the women themselves aren’t somehow shamed or degraded by the charges, which reflect the authorities’ attitudes at the time. The women were rebels, knew what they were risking and didn’t care about their reputation. Being pardoned would be a patronising pat on the head, a perverse “forgiveness” by a conformist society that has always punished women who speak out and act out.

Or its just a symbolic gesture of goodwill, that once again puts it into the news.

Even though its the paper i mostly read, a certain section of the guardian is basically a feminist version of RAWK

Click to expand...

Exactly. I don't remember anyone losing their shit about how "patronising" it was to posthumously issue Alan Turing a royal pardon over his prosecution for homosexuality. Because it was the right thing to do and a nice way to honour his memory. This is no different.

Exactly. I don't remember anyone losing their shit about how "patronising" it was to posthumously issue Alan Turing a royal pardon over his prosecution for homosexuality. Because it was the right thing to do and a nice way to honour his memory. This is no different.

Click to expand...

And yet... it was not all homosexual men that were pardoned, but one singular man.

Would Alan Turing have turned down his pardon had he lived to been offered it? He certainly wasn't against the idea of using his status as a National Asset during his trial in 1952, but Turing had friends and ex lovers who were persecuted in the exact same way, including Arnold Murray.

I'm not sure what the benefit to these pardons are. Maybe we should just say "we weren't good enough, we're sorry, you did nothing wrong."

And yet... it was not all homosexual men that were pardoned, but one singular man.

Would Alan Turing have turned down his pardon had he lived to been offered it? He certainly wasn't against the idea of using his status as a National Asset during his trial in 1952, but Turing had friends and ex lovers who were persecuted in the exact same way, including Arnold Murray.

I'm not sure what the benefit to these pardons are. Maybe we should just say "we weren't good enough, we're sorry, you did nothing wrong."

Click to expand...

Like I said. I think they're done because it's the right thing to do and it's an opportunity to posthumously honour people who did something good for society but ended up being harshly punished by the criminal courts. Fair point about there being a need to pardon everyone ever found guilty of an outdated law but it's not hard to see why the more high profile cases are more likely to come under scrutiny.

And yet... it was not all homosexual men that were pardoned, but one singular man.

Would Alan Turing have turned down his pardon had he lived to been offered it? He certainly wasn't against the idea of using his status as a National Asset during his trial in 1952, but Turing had friends and ex lovers who were persecuted in the exact same way, including Arnold Murray.

I'm not sure what the benefit to these pardons are. Maybe we should just say "we weren't good enough, we're sorry, you did nothing wrong."

A more fitting thing than a pardon is celebrating them. Maybe a national monument with a list of all those that stood up against oppression. A new equal opportunities bank holiday would be a good gesture.

I like the idea of having an extra bank holiday. That way us men can spend the afternoon in the pub toasting the brave suffragettes whilst our good ladies back home can make sure we have a good, hearty meal waiting for us when we get in.

The writer is merely making a similar point as when some people turn down an MBE, and only reactionary types make a big fuss about that. She has a right to be both angry, militant, and suspicious of the true motivation behind the state's belated, shabby & half-arsed mea culpa. Besides, without such anger and militancy, women would probably still be ineligible to vote.

The writer is merely making a similar point as when some people turn down an MBE, and only reactionary types make a big fuss about that. She has a right to be both angry, militant, and suspicious of the true motivation behind the state's belated, shabby & half-arsed mea culpa. Besides, without such anger and militancy, women would probably still be ineligible to vote.

Click to expand...

I missed this. I can get why the gesture may be well meant, but is ultimately a hollow one, but is it better to continue ignoring them?

A statue may be a nice idea, but nothing we do can obviously make up for what happened to these long-dead women.

I take issue with her 'rape-symbolic' description of force-feeding. Would she say about when Ian Brady, Peter Sutcliffe or male IRA inmates were force-fed while on hunger strike or is it only when it happens to women?

I like the idea of having an extra bank holiday. That way us men can spend the afternoon in the pub toasting the brave suffragettes whilst our good ladies back home can make sure we have a good, hearty meal waiting for us when we get in.

I take issue with her 'rape-symbolic' description of force-feeding. Would she say about when Ian Brady, Peter Sutcliffe or male IRA inmates were force-fed while on hunger strike or is it only when it happens to women?

Exactly. I don't remember anyone losing their shit about how "patronising" it was to posthumously issue Alan Turing a royal pardon over his prosecution for homosexuality. Because it was the right thing to do and a nice way to honour his memory. This is no different.

Click to expand...

Isn't it?

I feel like thats a very forced comparison. At a basic level the difference between the two is that we, as a society, find the law Turing was convicted of absolutely abhorrent; it's one thing saying 'the law you were convicted under should never have been a law in the first place' and quite another to say 'you broke the law as part of a good cause so it shouldn't matter'.

Whether the author overstates her argument or not I do think it's slightly missing the point to retroactively strip convictions from a bunch of people whose very civil disobedience was the whole point. It seems more about washing our hands as a society today of the attitudes of the past than it does about genuinely recognising how hard they had to fight for the same rights as men.

I don't think its ridiculous to suggest that a better memorial to the suffragettes would be to continue fighting for women's rights in the future rather than to try and change the past.

I feel like thats a very forced comparison. At a basic level the difference between the two is that we, as a society, find the law Turing was convicted of absolutely abhorrent; it's one thing saying 'the law you were convicted under should never have been a law in the first place' and quite another to say 'you broke the law as part of a good cause so it shouldn't matter'.

Whether the author overstates her argument or not I do think it's slightly missing the point to retroactively strip convictions from a bunch of people whose very civil disobedience was the whole point. It seems more about washing our hands as a society today of the attitudes of the past than it does about genuinely recognising how hard they had to fight for the same rights as men.
I don't think its ridiculous to suggest that a better memorial to the suffragettes would be to continue fighting for women's rights in the future rather than to try and change the past.

Click to expand...

The whole premise is ridiculous. The idea that this gesture takes away from the ongoing efforts for women’s rights is stupid. It’s not a zero sum game. Taking an opportunity to honour the efforts of suffragettes many years ago has feck all negative impact on women’s rights today, or in the future. This is classic Grauniad click bait. Give a forum to overly sensitivite ninnies who will find a way to take offence at anything, then sit back and watch the comments roll in. Reverse Daily Mailism.

Sadly, in much the same way as the very politicians I'd criticise: an apology & a resolve to improve matters for women in future. I don't have sufficient imagination for this task, unfortunately.

Click to expand...

With the push for corporate diversity, the likes of Legal & General and Fidelity- giant asset managers- have appointed female heads of diversity. I want to set up a series of interviews with them. Oh god is it bad if I ask my female deputy to do them? I don't mind splitting them and know her well enough that we can talk about it frankly.

With the push for corporate diversity, the likes of Legal & General and Fidelity- giant asset managers- have appointed female heads of diversity. I want to set up a series of interviews with them. Oh god is it bad if I ask my female deputy to do them? I don't mind splitting them and know her well enough that we can talk about it frankly.

The whole premise is ridiculous. The idea that this gesture takes away from the ongoing efforts for women’s rights is stupid. It’s not a zero sum game. Taking an opportunity to honour the efforts of suffragettes many years ago has feck all negative impact on women’s rights today, or in the future. This is classic Grauniad click bait. Give a forum to overly sensitivite ninnies who will find a way to take offence at anything, then sit back and watch the comments roll in. Reverse Daily Mailism.

Click to expand...

That's an incredibly cheap dismissal of an argument. Would you take it more seriously if SteveJ had started the thread with Caroline Criado-Perez's article in the New Statesman? Or what about Hannah Quirk's (excellent) article in the Conversation who both lay out why this is a problematic issue?

Anyway, I think it's an incredibly interesting discussion, and one worth having when plenty of people still involved in the fight think it's very far from an 'honour' to pardon the suffragettes. Boiling it down to 'overly sensitive ninnies who find a way to take offence at anything' is itself incredibly patronising (and perhaps even a bit tone deaf considering the fact this discussion touches on the attitudes the suffragettes had to deal with) and a complete and utter failure to engage with the substance of what is being said.

That's an incredibly cheap dismissal of an argument. Would you take it more seriously if SteveJ had started the thread with Caroline Criado-Perez's article in the New Statesman? Or what about Hannah Quirk's (excellent) article in the Conversation who both lay out why this is a problematic issue?

Anyway, I think it's an incredibly interesting discussion, and one worth having when plenty of people still involved in the fight think it's very far from an 'honour' to pardon the suffragettes. Boiling it down to 'overly sensitive ninnies who find a way to take offence at anything' is itself incredibly patronising (and perhaps even a bit tone deaf considering the fact this discussion touches on the attitudes the suffragettes had to deal with) and a complete and utter failure to engage with the substance of what is being said.

Click to expand...

That’s because there is no substance. Like I said, it’s based on a false premise. The idea that this initiative detracts from the ongoing efforts for woman’s rights is poppycock. I know it sounds harsh but that really is an absurdly over-sensitive way to interpret this gesture. Which isn’t hugely surprising coming from a movement that has demonstrably lost the run of itself in increasingly far-fetched efforts to take offence where none exists.

That’s because there is no substance. Like I said, it’s based on a false premise. The idea that this initiative detracts from the ongoing efforts for woman’s right. I know it sounds harsh but that really is an absurdly over-sensitive premise. Which isn’t hugely surprising coming from a movement that has demonstrably lost the run of itself in increasingly far-fetched efforts to take offence where none exists.

Click to expand...

Well no, firstly it argues that there is no 'ongoing effort for woman's rights' from the government. It's not a zero-sum game, but in Criado-Perez' words:

The suffragettes above all valued “Deeds, not Words.” And a pardon from today’s government for the actions of long-dead men is the epitome of words not deeds.

A pardon costs today’s government nothing. It is pain-free, and it is meaningless. And in the context of the deeds this government is enacting, it is an insult.

This is a government, after all, that refuses to gender analyse its budgets — despite the fact that it is arguably a legal requirement under the 2010 Equality Act, and despite that fact that more than one body has found that 86 per cent of cuts since 2010 have fallen on women. This is a government that refuses to adequately fund women’s shelters, leading to 94 women and 90 children being turned away from Women’s Aid refuges on a single day last year. This is a government that forces women to prove they were raped in order to claim child tax credits if they are wilful enough to have a third child — and which forced this change through Parliament without a vote.

This is a government, in short, that has repeatedly shown it is not interested in equality

Click to expand...

You may not agree with that argument, but it's certainly not an argument that deserves to be dismissed as 'absurdly over-sensitive' out of hand.

Secondly, that's only half the argument. I've yet to see you engage with the other half of it.

I can see why the first article would get your back up – and I have little time for her style either – but I don't think the baby should be chucked out of the bathwater because of it. Even if you think the suffragettes should ultimately be pardoned, it seems perfectly sensible to discuss whether a pardon is a fitting 'honour' for their legacy and whether pardons should be used in this way in the first place. Many think it is not, and many others think that they shouldn't. Dismissing those arguments as coming purely from 'over-sensitivity' is wrong.

Well no, firstly it argues that there is no 'ongoing effort for woman's rights' from the government. It's not a zero-sum game, but in Criado-Perez' words:
You may not agree with that argument, but it's certainly not an argument that deserves to be dismissed as 'absurdly over-sensitive' out of hand.

Secondly, that's only half the argument. I've yet to see you engage with the other half of it.

I can see why the first article would get your back up – and I have little time for her style either – but I don't think the baby should be chucked out of the bathwater because of it. Even if you think the suffragettes should ultimately be pardoned, it seems perfectly sensible to discuss whether a pardon is a fitting 'honour' for their legacy and whether pardons should be used in this way in the first place. Many think it is not, and many others think that they shouldn't. Dismissing those arguments as coming purely from 'over-sensitivity' is wrong.

It may seem like a cop out but I'd argue we already celebrate the suffragettes in the best possible way, which is the involvement of women (and every other social group that got the vote alongside them in 1918 and 1928) in the democratic process. With that in mind I wonder if the best possible celebration of the suffragettes going forward is the embracing of their legacy. On the one hand we can continue to fight for equality and on the other question whether full universal suffrage could be even fuller, and ensure that their legacy isn't forgotten by ensuring they're taught in schools and people are actively reminded that their right to vote (men too) owes a lot to movement.

It may seem like a cop out but I'd argue we already celebrate the suffragettes in the best possible way, which is the involvement of women (and every other social group that got the vote alongside them in 1918 and 1928) in the democratic process. With that in mind I wonder if the best possible celebration of the suffragettes going forward is the embracing of their legacy. On the one hand we can continue to fight for equality and on the other question whether full universal suffrage could be even fuller, and ensure that their legacy isn't forgotten by ensuring they're taught in schools and people are actively reminded that their right to vote (men too) owes a lot to movement.

Click to expand...

I agree with all of that but struggle to know what it means ultimately.

I agree with all of that but struggle to know what it means ultimately.

Click to expand...

In terms of what I mean specifically with what I've said?

I actually think the most fascinating thing about the suffragettes legacy going forward is going to be how public perception of changes over the next hundred years. Already some intersectional feminists, whilst acknowledging the legacy of the suffragettes, express issues with how people of colour (male and female) and lower classes were marginalised in the fight for suffrage across the globe. I have a feeling that if and when intersectional feminism becomes mainstream people are going to start focussing more on the negative aspects than the positive. Not the time or place for that discussion mind, but it's definitely interesting.

I actually think the most fascinating thing about the suffragettes legacy going forward is going to be how public perception of changes over the next hundred years. Already some intersectional feminists, whilst acknowledging the legacy of the suffragettes, express issues with how people of colour (male and female) and lower classes were marginalised in the fight for suffrage across the globe. I have a feeling that if and when intersectional feminism becomes mainstream people are going to start focussing more on the negative aspects than the positive. Not the time or place for that discussion mind, but it's definitely interesting.

Click to expand...

Crikey, had never actually thought whether they marginalised ethnic minorities, but ultimately they were campaigning for universal suffrage which covered them too, surely?

Crikey, had never actually thought whether they marginalised ethnic minorities, but ultimately they were campaigning for universal suffrage which covered them too, surely?

Click to expand...

The answer is, as always, it depends – I think. I'd preface this by saying we're moving into an area that I'm not as familiar with as I should be, so I may be oversimplifying.

But the issue is, as always, that historical figures are products of their time and even ones that did a lot of good held opinions and ideas that are out of step with what we consider right now. That's true for the suffragettes as much as anyone else.

As the fight for suffrage was a global movement there were worse expressions of marginalisation in some places than others. Susan B. Anthony came out with some incredibly questionable stuff in the US, and there's always a pervading sense that the campaign for female suffrage separated itself from the campaign for racial equality because they thought it might damage the movement.

In the UK the issue is less clear cut, perhaps, but still there. Emmeline Pankhurst, despite her fostering of the still troublesome 'I'd rather be a rebel than a slave' motto became a huge supporter of Empire, and Fawcett is reported to have been incensed that Maiori women in NZ received the vote before white women in the UK. There was always a bit of a sense of 'well civilised white women in Britain should have the right to vote if the uncivilised brutes elsewhere in the world do'; that came with the territory of Britain's colonial mindset.

Some leaders were, at best, uninterested in the fight for working class women's right to vote. The Pankhurst's fell out over the issue with Sylvia Pankhurst later saying that Emmeline had said “a working woman’s movement was of no value; working women were the weakest portion of the sex, how could it be otherwise? Their lives were too hard, their education too meagre to equip them for the contest.”.

However we choose to square the circle with the good they did, and however future generations choose to do so, it's a part of the fight that deserves not to be forgotten.